Are The Largest E-Tailers Abandoning Abandoned Carts?

Written by Evan Schuman
August 18th, 2009

A study released this month (Aug. 13) reports that almost 90 percent of surveyed large retail sites did not choose to chase after customers that had abandoned their shopping carts during E-Commerce visits. Although the idea of chasing such potential customers with E-mail is hardly new, the high percentage of retailers not pursuing them was worthy of note. For that matter, also worthy of note is who did the survey and how.

For matters of credibility, we overwhelmingly avoid reporting on studies that are actually vendor marketing departments pushing studies whose results were likely determined before the first question was asked. This gets us into a thorny editorial debate. If the idea or results are valid, should the source matter? The answer is that it probably shouldn’t, as long as the methodology seems valid and fair.

This particular report got a lot of attention after another publication, Internet Retailer—which we actually have a lot of hard-earned respect for—ran a story about the abandoned shopping cart report. The study was done by Listrak, which sells software that—you guessed it—chases online consumer after they’ve abandoned a shopping cart. The headline on the Listrak statement was “E-mail Service Provider Listrak Conducts ‘Shop and Abandon’ Cart Study Using Internet Retailer 500 List.” So we have a vendor that sells this stuff saying that retailers should buy more of it and a publication reporting on the study while publicizing its own brand.

None of this disproves the results, but I’d be a lot more comfortable if it was The Wall Street Journal covering a Forrester report. Still, if the methodology is solid, nothing else matters much.

This is Listrak’s description of its methodology: “Between June 15 and June 30, 2009, two Listrak employees visited each of the Internet Retail 500. They shopped and abandoned carts on 398 sites. The remaining 102 sites, or just more than 20 percent, could not be shopped or included in the study, either because they required a credit card number to put items in a shopping cart, or they did not require an E-Mail sign-in, meaning abandoning a cart could not trigger an abandonment E-Mail.”

Starting with the Internet Retailer 500 list was a good start, although if the vendor is going to drop a publication’s brand into a news release, they should at least get the name right. No matter. It’s the next line that’s a problem. The question of significance for this announcement is heavily based on these being the largest retailers. The statement references that some 102 sites were excluded. If almost all of them were from the bottom of the list, that’s not a big problem. If they were mostly from the top, it’s a huge problem.

So what then triggered the exclusion? Exclusion Number One: “They required a credit card number to put items in a shopping cart.” Setting aside the nitpick that they probably meant required a credit or a debit card number, this was an exclusion? Granted, this technique is not the shrewdest thing in the world for an e-tailer to do, as it sharply discourages browsing and experimentation, which often leads to sales. But why not just give a credit card number to test the system? It doesn’t seem a valid reason to exclude them.

Unless someone thought it through and concluded such an action likely would eliminate the tire-kickers with no intention to buy and that the inclusion of such sites would reduce the need for abandoned cart chasing. Exclusion Number Two: “Did not require an E-mail sign-in.” Many sites, wisely I would argue, give shoppers an option to shop as a guest or to sign in. The guest mode is much more anonymous, which is a good approach for those who don’t want to be chased down if they opt to buy elsewhere. As a research methodology, it’s a completely legitimate exemption. But given the fact that many of the largest sites are offering their anonymous shopping, would excluding this eliminate some of the largest brands?

We debated whether we should even note this study, but concluded that we should present the data—along with our concerns. The premise of the report—which is that retailers should use the data they have to push for more sales—is a valid one, but I just wish the messenger didn’t have such an obvious incentive to come to that conclusion.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.